3 ms·

I think your statement answers pretty well an observation made earlier: Why is IPv6 adoption so bad? I see little incentive for anyone as long as IPv4 is such a

I think your statement answers pretty well an observation made earlier: Why is IPv6 adoption so bad? I see little incentive for anyone as long as IPv4 is such a profitable business with IP addresses being traded as an asset. IPv6 and equality to the masses? Would be nice but economy took adifferent turn

dagenix 8y ago
That's fully backwards. The people with the incentive to delay moving to IPV6 are the ones selling IPs. Those buying - ISPs - are also the ones that have the incentive to move to IPV6 as in an IPV6 world, they wouldn't have the spend that money. And ISPs are the ones best positioned for further IPV6. That IPV6 adoption is slow is precisy because buying ranges of IPV4 addresses is still cheap enough that people are doing it.
sarah180 8y ago
I don't think this analysis is correct. Imagine Chrome started charging small amounts of bitcoin for each HTTP request but Firefox still allowed free access. I don't think you'd say "I'm now incentivized to use Chrome because I have to have an artificial scarce resource." ISPs can basically get all the IPv6 resources they need, but IPv4 addresses are becoming scarce and costly. Amazon just spent a lot of money to get more IPv4 addresses: that's cost, not profit. If Amazon owned all the addresses and they were making great profits as a monopoly seller, this would indeed be an incentive not to move to IPv6. Instead, it's really just driving up people's costs. Adoption is slow because the extra costs of IPv4 addresses are still smaller than the costs of really getting every piece of infrastructure and software working correctly with IPv6. We're not that far away, but there's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem until we're close enough that people can start to turn off IPv4 and effectively force stragglers to adopt.
dasil003 8y ago
When an equivalent solution becomes cheaper that's a recipe for disruption, not the other way around.
cm2187 8y ago
ISP are really the bottleneck for IPv6 adoption. Pretty much all the infrastructures of the internet (network, datacentres, clouds) support it now.

dagenix 8y ago

That's fully backwards. The people with the incentive to delay moving to IPV6 are the ones selling IPs. Those buying - ISPs - are also the ones that have the incentive to move to IPV6 as in an IPV6 world, they wouldn't have the spend that money. And ISPs are the ones best positioned for further IPV6. That IPV6 adoption is slow is precisy because buying ranges of IPV4 addresses is still cheap enough that people are doing it.

sarah180 8y ago

I don't think this analysis is correct. Imagine Chrome started charging small amounts of bitcoin for each HTTP request but Firefox still allowed free access. I don't think you'd say "I'm now incentivized to use Chrome because I have to have an artificial scarce resource." ISPs can basically get all the IPv6 resources they need, but IPv4 addresses are becoming scarce and costly. Amazon just spent a lot of money to get more IPv4 addresses: that's cost, not profit. If Amazon owned all the addresses and they were making great profits as a monopoly seller, this would indeed be an incentive not to move to IPv6. Instead, it's really just driving up people's costs. Adoption is slow because the extra costs of IPv4 addresses are still smaller than the costs of really getting every piece of infrastructure and software working correctly with IPv6. We're not that far away, but there's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem until we're close enough that people can start to turn off IPv4 and effectively force stragglers to adopt.

dasil003 8y ago

When an equivalent solution becomes cheaper that's a recipe for disruption, not the other way around.

cm2187 8y ago

ISP are really the bottleneck for IPv6 adoption. Pretty much all the infrastructures of the internet (network, datacentres, clouds) support it now.